Preparing for the next National Emergency: the Gun Crisis?

Posted by  $  Zero 8 months, 1 week ago to Ask the Gulch
97 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A question to Trump supporters:
If he is successful in his bid for emergency powers, are you not worried that a future president would likewise bypass congress, issuing emergency executive orders to confront the "gun crisis?"

Or do you believe Pelosi was making an empty threat?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by BCRinFremont 8 months, 1 week ago
    Of course, a “gun crisis” emergency executive order could be issued. My sense is that this would be a bridge too far and would result in a prohibition-like atmosphere with chaos, crime and civil disobedience approaching civil war.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BCRinFremont 8 months, 1 week ago
      ...and like alcohol prohibition, would have to be walked back to save the Republic.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by NealS 8 months ago
        Australia hasn't walked back their gun control, at least not yet. But also they do not experience the foreign conspiracies that are trying to take over this country. Personally I know a lot of people that would rebel against Nancy if she tried. Some of them may even rebel like democrats do.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
      Mark Levin said that the legislation that allows such declaration of emergencies also permits marshal law and the conscription of industry to do what the government tells it to. Has anyone looked at this law in detail?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 8 months, 1 week ago
    It's not technically bypassing congress since what he is doing is activating the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which was passed by congress to give the president the power to act.

    Does this fall within the scope of that act? I guess we'll find out in the ensuing court battles.

    And what he's doing is moving money around, not removing a constitutional right -- which would probably instantly fail in the courts. Although FDR did get away with imprisoning a race of citizens, but then the Court let FDR do pretty much anything he wanted, it was a New Deal after all, not that old constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
      But... my question?
      Are you not afraid of what will happen next, when it's not your guy?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months, 1 week ago
        What world have you been living in. For decades politicians have been eroding your liberty, freedoms and constitutional rights.
        See Hussein National Emergencies Vs Trump
        https://www.google.com/search?q=obama....
        For the first time we have someone who is fighting for we the people from being totally enslaved by a criminal Cabal of RINO’S and D’s. I support and Trust Trump. It is an emergency open your eyes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 months ago
          So as long as the motives are good...as long as the guy's doing something you want...that makes it okay, does it?--
          Not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
            "Ends justifies the means" is not a valid principle. Doing what you think is right under the law is. A moral person who understands what he is doing and why has a moral right to use a law in ways in which the immoral do not. Remember Ayn Rand's "A Question of Scholarships", and apply that principle more broadly..

            We have long left the state of a country in which the fundamental principle of government for protection of the rights of the individual is widely accepted, with political policy and elections debated only as the best way to implement that. Our basic rights were not supposed to be on the ballot, let alone every ballot.

            Almost every major controversy is now over individualism versus a drive for collectivism that was never supposed to be open for consideration in politics, and with both political sides progressively representing more of a collectivist, statist false alternative. It's becoming increasingly nasty and harder to pick who to ally with for a moral purpose even on specific issues, let alone elections.

            With more statism on the ballot in every election, with neither candidate representing a proper alternative, all elections are morally dubious. Yet if we were to write them off wholesale in terms of "ends don't justify the means" as an out of context frozen abstraction, we would have to concede every election in advance.

            Think contextually when applying principles, remembering that morality deals only with choices available in reality, and that there are political battles that must be fought for our own survival. Remember the role of morality in "causality versus duty".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by craigerb 8 months ago
          True. Politicians have been avoiding this emergency for several administrations. It has reached a crisis.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by craigerb 8 months ago
            I think invasion was one of the conditions the National Emergencies Act was made for.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months ago
              Organized by Soros and his Open borders foundation through a Chicago based group are caravans seeded with criminals and enemies from the middle east and elsewhere . With the goal of breaching our defenses is a crisis. Trump did everything he could besides bribery to get a unified bipartisan congressional assistance in fixing this vulnerable border. I wonder if El Capo
              Will name the politicians and others with his payoffs. Good bye corrupt leaders your days are numbered.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
          What emergency do you think he's stopping? Something broader than the illegal immigration?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months ago
            Yup.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
              He's doing what he thinks is right for the country, but has little understanding in principle, and is not properly conveying it, often contradicting himself. Most of the country doesn't understand that either. Whatever he manages to accomplish for the good is very temporary
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months ago
                Maybe, but his stated goal is to make a real and lasting difference. Once the corrupt criminal elements in the government are removed. We have a much better chance for that to happen.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
                  Future presidents will change what he does just as he changed some of what his predecessors did. He is not changing the course of the nation, which depends on ideas broadly accepted and which he does not understand.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 8 months, 1 week ago
        I'm always afraid of what the government can do. One of the things that needs to happen to actually have a representative government is for congress to stop giving blank checks such as this to the executive, particularly in the area of regulation. They pass generic bills authorizing the agencies which, in essence, write their own laws when they draft the regulations. They need to have less latitude.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months, 1 week ago
          Federal Register pages are also way down, winning praise from corporate America and consumers.

          Under Trump the daily list of pages totaled 61,308 in 2017 and 68,082 this year.

          Former President Barack Obama’s high was 95,894 in 2016, as he was rushing through new rules before Trump took office. However, both both former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had lower pages published in some years than Trump.

          In what Crews has dubbed the “Unconstitutionality Index,” Trump has has also slashed the percentage of new rules to new laws passed by Congress and signed by Trump, he wrote in a second report issued Monday.

          Trump’s 2018 index was 12: 3,367 new rules compared to 291 new laws.

          The Index reached 29 under Obama.

          “The point, though, is that the unelected personnel of agencies do the bulk of lawmaking in America, not Congress — no matter the party in power,”
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 8 months, 1 week ago
        Bypassing Congress did not start with president Trump.

        It started with Hussein in recent years.

        Remember his "I have a phone and a pen" mantra?

        There was no other president in recent memory who "governed" by executive orders bypassing Congress.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
          Bypassing congress wasn't my point.
          Are you not afraid of what the next liberal president will do with this newly expanded power?
          And I imply 'Wouldn't it be better not to take this opportunity to expand this particular presidential power?'
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 8 months, 1 week ago
            "Are you not afraid of what the next liberal president will do with this newly expanded power?"

            Not at all.

            The left will use anything to expand their power, even illegal means. There are plenty of examples.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
              The left and the right. There are plenty of examples both ways.
              That's one reason you're so dissatisfied with the Republican Party, right?
              They are not true small-government advocates but will assume powers un-given as readily as any other politician, right? So, of course, this seems a clear case of the right doing things they were not intended to do, no?

              And seriously, if you are not afraid of power mad politicians hell-bent on making you do what they say... well...
              I'll just be polite and let it hang.
              (We are too rude in this new age of instant outrage.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  exceller 8 months, 1 week ago
                I find it difficult to bring examples of abuse on the right to the extent it has been practiced on the left.

                For example: Harry Read did not bring any bill up for vote during Hussein's rein. Can you show an equally egregious abuse of power on the right?

                As far as emergency powers: Hussein used them a dozen times. Did you worry at that time how it'll affect future president's power?

                As far as "power mad" politicians, I suggest you look for them in the Dem party. You'll be surprise how many of them you will be able to identify.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
                  I vote Republican for a reason. But I am not a partisan hack.
                  My BS detector is on high gain at all times and turns a full 360 degrees.

                  Just to drive home the point:
                  We all love the Constituion here, right? And everyone knows the Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse to Congress - the voice of the people.

                  And we all know this was on purpose - the single most powerful check-and-balance against abuse by the Executive branch.

                  And the congress that denied funds for the wall did, in fact, express the will of the people.
                  (All Dems oppose the wall as do a great many Republicans - myself included. Therefore, polls-be-damned, more than half of Americans oppose the wall.)

                  360 degrees, dude.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
                    Congress does not by itself represent the "will of the people". All three branches represent the people in different ways, including election of a president. There is a balance of power for funding.

                    The Constitution gave the power of initiating spending bills to the House, with Senate approval required and all of it subject to presidential veto. That is what he did with the shutdown. Congress has also allowed some shifting of funds under the law, retaining the power to override it, also subject to veto.

                    Those processes should not be equated with an acquiescence to the notion of a standard that our current Congress represents the good and no one should use the law to oppose what it does. The entire process is used by both sides in a fight.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  exceller 8 months, 1 week ago
                    "And the congress that denied funds for the wall did, in fact, express the will of the people."

                    No, it doesn't..

                    No idea what polls you are looking at but you are wrong.

                    Dude.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
                      That was the strength of my argument - I wasn't referring to polls. I used simple reason from well established facts.

                      The fact is our country is split almost exactly down the middle - half liberal/ half conservative. Every election is 51/49 these days. A 55% victory margin is considered a "mandate."

                      From that one easily deduces that half the country is liberal and opposed to the wall.
                      From the other half a fair number of Republicans are still Never Trumpers - myself included but I am far from alone.

                      Hence, by simple deduction, more than half of the population is not in favor of the wall.

                      BTW - what polls did you see that showed the opposite? The polls I saw showed numbers skewed heavily against the wall.

                      But I don't trust polls so I didn't reference them,
                      (I didn't say "polls be damned" because they were against my position - I said it because they are damn-able - constantly manipulated to get the desired result. I should have been clearer. That's my bad.)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months ago
                        Trumps state of the union address
                        The main focus was the wall.
                        95% approval from R’s
                        80% approval from the I’s
                        30% approval from the D’s

                        Btw we are not a democracy we are a Republic
                        What is the difference? I’ll give a hint one uses mob rule!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months ago
                        " Every election is 51/49 these days. From that one easily deduces that half the country is liberal and opposed to the wall. "
                        I understand the reasoning, but I hope (am not sure) people are a little more sophisticated. We've been building barriers at locations where there are high illegal crossings for decades. It worked. Illegal crossings are down 82%. President Trump making a big deal out of the issue is just a dog whistle for his deplorables, not a real issue. Democrats play right along, opposing it, even though they supported it in the past and it worked.

                        Back in high school, people said you had to be tripping out on acid to understand The Wall, and it's even more true today.

                        The politics reminds me of the most disgusting behavior I've seen at work. The job is 82% done and instead of carrying on with the job a few jerks instead try to get people angry and exploit that for dishonest gain. .

                        I am very concerned about every growing executive power. Many people can tell who to blame for it, but no one has a solution to stop it.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by craigerb 8 months ago
                          "The job is 82% done and instead of carrying on with the job a few jerks instead try to get people angry and exploit that for dishonest gain."
                          I'm curious about this. Are people intentionally delaying completion in order to cause "cost overruns"? Is this happening in private industry or government?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months ago
                            "Are people intentionally delaying completion"
                            I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's going on, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Congress has been spending money building border barriers, which have been effective at reducing illegal crossings. We should keep doing more of the same where we see significant illegal crossings. But President Trump hyped it as a bold new idea, and Democrats go along with the hype but say they're against it.

                            I believe President Trump's main ability is getting attention. He's effectively turned something that we have been doing for decades successfully into a debate over an imaginary issue.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
                        Down voted without reply. Whatever.

                        Just to be clear here, an irrefutable argument is one which is irrefutably true.
                        To deny the truth - when shown/known to be so - is an intellectual betrayal of the gravest extreme.

                        You can call yourself whatever you want, but Objectivists wouldn't usually do that.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  25n56il4 8 months, 1 week ago
              I am never afraid. Weren't they all shocked when Trump was elected? We aren't all stupid! I never hear from my liberal friends. They are very quiet. I think there is going to be a real explosion inside the Democrat Party. The conservatives aren't going to let these liberals do more than run off their mouths.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 1 week ago
    I think that presidents have been conspiring with con-gress for decades against the liberty of Americans. Of course, I am concerned if ANY president has emergency powers that are unconstitutional, but presidents have been doing the bidding of the state with such powers for decades pretending its for our own good.
    When someone can convince enough people to wake up and stop giving their consent and their money to the feds, then there will be a chance for the unconstitutional overreach to stop.
    Until that happens Americans will follow the new savior of the moment. Trump may be the least harmful and the best chance for a return to constitutional government, but only if he resists the temptation of great power and can gather enough allies and support to defeat a very powerful deep state enemy that has been manipulating people for centuries. The risk that any leader will be willing to give up the power once vested is a great danger to liberty.
    If Americans give up their firearms there is nothing to prevent dictatorship.
    I have no peaceful solution to this quandary, Zero.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 8 months ago
      I have said several times here in the gulch that I am already 71 yrs old. I will live out whatever time I have left on this earth ON MY FEET....NOT MY KNEES. Heston said it right
      FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.........
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 8 months ago
      You also said.... if he can can gather enough allies.
      He had enough of us to get himself elected.
      But, now the demon dems are trying to bring in more voters across the border. And YES of course they will vote.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
      When someone can convince enough people to wake up and stop giving their consent and their money to the feds, then there will be a chance for the unconstitutional overreach to stop.

      Wouldn't that include this moment right now?
      Isn't this a direct call-out to stop giving your consent?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 1 week ago
        It must be convincing enough to overcome the convenience of the current enslavement.
        Most people just consent in ignorance and/or fear.
        What will be the propaganda event that takes the place of Lexington and Concord? Will it be the evidence of treason by the previous administration and the most recent Dem candidate for POTUS?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months ago
    There are roughly 100 million known gun owners (and most likely a lot of unknowns as well), approximately 300 million guns in private hands, and around 12 trillion rounds of ammunition privately held. State efforts to get gun owners to voluntarily turn in large capacity magazines have flopped. Even in "blue" New York, less than an estimated 5% complied, and law enforcement has made it known they oppose any effort to forcibly seize legally owned guns.

    Any president who tried to declare gun ownership a national emergency would be triggering a revolt. It's not unimaginable that a Democrat with visions of the grandeur of a police state might make the attempt, but it would fail catastrophically.

    The least harmful ending to such a declaration would be the SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional, violating the 2nd amendment. Beyond that is an invitation to violence, with most uniformed military siding with the citizen gun owners.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
      The statists are taking an incremental approach because they know those numbers and what would happen with an outright seizure -- for this generation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 months ago
      You hope. Don't count on it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months ago
        The governor of Louisiana tried to seize all privately owned guns in New Orleans after Katrina. She tried to avoid any hometown reaction by issuing the orders only to National Guard troops from out of state. After one guardsman sent a video of such seizures, and it went viral, the Guard refused to follow the order. Many military are NRA members, so I doubt any such order would succeed, at least for the foreseeable future.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 8 months ago
    First of all (last question first): Nancy Pelosi is an empty suit. Second, the crucial difference between President Trump's National Emergency (vs. some hypothetical NE that confiscates personal firearms) is that the POTUS has the constitutional duty to defend the constitution and the country (that would mean, borders). We have Second Amendment Rights in this country, and any EO to take them would be blatantly unconstitutional, violating not only the 2nd, but also the 4t, 5th, and 14th Amendments. The only "gun crisis" we have had in this country is when democrats are in power and they threaten our Second Amendment rights. Starting with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), which was an emotional "We've got to DO something!" overreaction to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK, Carter subsequently issued an edict that anybody purchasing "handgun ammo" had to register their names, addresses, and other personal identifying information (PII) in a notebook in the sporting goods store where you bought the ammo. At the time, I was in high school, but I had a .22 Remington bolt-action RIFLE, so I had to sign my name every time I bought .22 ammo (because it COULD be used in a handgun!). I didn't have to sign my name for .30-30 Win or .30-06 Springfield, which of course are much more powerful. Later, Reagan rescinded that stupid Carter edict (I don't remember whether that was an "Executive Order" or what). (So, just because some gun control rule gets on the books, doesn't mean it will always be there.) Still later, there was Clinton's assault on gun rights ("Assault Weapon Ban" etc.). During Obama's junta, threats to Second Amendment rights went into orbit, and gun sales skyrocketed. Again, the only "gun crisis" is when our rights are threatened by left-wing tyrants. If some future president were to declare a NE over guns, what would that mean? An order to confiscate personal firearms en masse? That would trigger civil war. There would be "Lexington Green" events all over the country. Half the households in this country have guns. Out of a population of 330 million, 100-120 million people have guns, and there are 300 million firearms in private hands. So, the "average" gun owner has 3 firearms (some have less, some have more - some have a LOT more!). We will NEVER surrender our constitution rights. Molon labe!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jujucat 8 months ago
    I think that the up and coming socialist kids like AOC would not hesitate to use whatever means to achieve their ends. Pelosi, not so sure about. Also, I wish to whine, and forgive me if this was already stated here, as I haven't had time to read the whole thread: There have been a LOT of national emergencies declared over the decades. I think the exec branch has too much power already, but I guess what I'm whining about it the thought that he's getting so much flack for just this one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
    Here are the problems with that argument:
    1) Where was this when Obama gave Amnesty/work papers to illegals?
    2) He is doing it, WITHIN the guidelines of the laws. We have a RIGHT to have our borders secured.
    3) If you point this at confiscating guns... BUT LIMIT it to ILLEGALS... I am okay with that!
    4) If you think declaring an national emergency of Freedom of Speech or the Second Amendment is NOT a clear violation of our rights (vs. securing the border, which is part of the presidents job)... Then I think you are making the liberal argument.

    Finally, we may well be past the point of no return. If Trump cant get this fixed up, it wont matter, they will come for our Freedom of Speech (closing conservative platforms... Oh, already started), and limiting gun purchases to those 21 and older (oh, done that), and then they will make magazines holding more than ONE bullet illegal (it's probably coming), and then, and then...

    We are sliding down the slippery slope at a rapid pace.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months ago
    I don't think the a fake "gun crisis" is a good analogy. Border protection is something we're already spending money on. Congress and the president disagree on how much to spend. A better analogy would be a fake crisis associated with childhood nutrition, healthcare, or housing. It would be something we're already spending money on like food stamps, Medicaid, or rent/mortgage subsidies.

    I hope courts disallow it and it turns out just to be a political ploy. If the executive branch making up a fake national emergency actually works, I predict another fake emergency will be coming soon, and it will involve "the children".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 months ago
    That's the thing that bothers me about Trump's "emergency announcement" plan: What happens when the shoe's on the other foot?! What if another Roosevelt gets in and wants to take over all the nation's banks, or something? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander; we should not allow one government official to have that much power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
      That escalating 'emergency' power is built into law passed by Congress long ago and used many times by previous presidents. The statists are already using it; they put it into law.

      But it isn't, as a matter of law, open-ended. It doesn't legally allow violating the Constitution. They increasingly do that politically, in accordance with ideas popularly accepted, not because of the emergency act, which is only one tool and rationalization along the way.

      All of Trump's maneuvers, whether or not the goals are justified, are done without regard to proper principles or public appeals to proper principles of the rights of the individual. That is a big problem with his tenure as president, not the emergency declaration in particular. He's not setting a precedent so much as continuing the already established precedents. His sanctioning and promoting them is a false alternative to the left, serving to brand anyone radically opposed to the left as part of the same false premises. That is the precedent he's furthering.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 months ago
        And we shouldn't give them such a handle.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
          Congress already did it. It would seem that it would be unconstitutional for one branch of government to cede its constitutional powers to another branch not constitutionally authorized to take them over. "Balance of power" has been turned into a cabal. Someone comes along who doesn't go along with what was anticipated and they don't like the consequences of their own actions. But for them to understand that would require thinking principles they don't have.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 8 months ago
    There is no gun crisis outside of those area where Ds have enacted unconsitutional gun laws. The fact that its isolated to specific cities within specific states negates the crisis moniker by removing the term national emergency from the discussion.

    Pelosi is a witness hag using scare tactics to try to influence what she has no business influencing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out she and her cronies helped manufacture incidents over the years to advance their "gun violence" anti-gun agenda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 months ago
      Pelosi's revelation (as if we didn't already know it) is that it doesn'tmatter whether is a crisis or emergency, they call whatever they want an "emergency" and proceed to decree.

      The particular example of their "gun crisis" is meaningless for the National Emergencies Act because no legislation can authorize anything that is unconstitutional, such as violating the Bill of Rights. Democrats do it all the time but it isn't legal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 8 months ago
    I think nearly all Executive Orders sit on very shaky Constitutional grounds. So, yes, I am concerned and I think it a very valid and poignant question.

    The real question comes in the enforcement, however, because without that, Orders are effectively meaningless. What is the standard enforcement measure of the Executive Branch? The military. Good luck getting those guys to go around with weapons drawn confiscating others' weapons. I know too many good men and women in the armed forces and there is no way they would go along with such an order.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 8 months ago
    The ability to use executive orders to make new rules that the population must obey has been used since the first presidency. It is contrary to the idea of a constitutional republic and arguing about it is irrelevant since any rule is enforced on the populace regardless of its validity. If Donald Trump believed in the constitution (his actions have proven that he does not) he would not use it for any reason.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 8 months ago
    I can't put into enough words why this whole idea is so asinine. So, the Democrats would NEVER have thought of doing something like this if President Trump had NOT used his emergency powers for the wall...?

    Give me a break!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 8 months ago
    TERM LIMITS !!! Term Limits would tend to make people have more common sense, and less chance to change their minds based on politics. They would spend more effort representing than they do campaigning. It would benefit everyone, especially the nation as a whole.

    Nancy should be made aware that Term Limits is really a national emergency.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjmcd 8 months ago
    There would be open insurrection and the dimms know that. The Federal military is forbidden by the Constitution from firing on American civilians, and I dare say that most of the police would quit their stations before taking the part of communists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo